The Problem with Religion (whatever that is ...)

Following Togetherforpeace's revised contest rules, a response to thunderfoot's video "The Problem with Religion."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vktnYVOsDns

Category:

Education

Tags:

• religion
• science
• method
• inductivism
• observation
• empiricism
• rationalism
• prior
• posterior
• definition
• thunderfoot
• telemantros

[Botzu]

@telemantros how do you get the oughtness of moral accountability without using PEARL, in specific, the part about reasoned logic?

[telemantros]

@Botzu The oughtness of ethics does not come from reasoned logic but from moral prescriptiveness i.e. moral accountability. In other words it is an ethical ought, not a logical ought.

[Aresftfun]

Let me tell you what the scientific method is.

The scientific method is to make a prediction and make an observation about that prediction. You were using that when you were a child. The thing is, science is probably our most useful tool that we have ever had. Religion has given us a bunch of people who read, but the teachers did not expect them to read other books, and they hadn't for centuries. Nonetheless, I am at awe with what science has brought us; Not so much with religious scare tactics

[telemantros]

@Aresftfun Did you watch the critique? This seems simply like a repetition. What do you mean by religion? What version of the scientific method do you espouse (e.g. Inductivism or Eclectic or Hypothetico-Deductive)? Science is useful I agree, but it has its place.

[bofumytofu]

scientism? really? stop making up words >.>

[telemantros]

@bofumytofu lol, I'm sorry ... but really, look it up.

[8the8just8]

GOOGLE THE HOLOCAUST HOAX AND PROPAGANDA BY DAVID COLE

[gibsonfan871]

---

[NashvilleKildCountry]

Ah... my rational freethinking brain is being over loaded by all those big philosophy words!

[RealKeenan]

@HubertCumberdale22 oic

[HubertCumberdale22]

@RealKeenan Seems like a very thoughtful comment. I'd also like to write something equaly thoughtful in reply relating to this video, but this would be a pointless exercise since I think we more or less agree about what to think of TF's video. My comment was only directed at Telemantros' way of presenting his argument which I thought was fucking annoying.

[RealKeenan]

@HubertCumberdale22 but he had a point to his "whatever that is." he was referring to the strawmen that TF set up. if he meant religious person as one who disregards science as nonsense, then I would agree with what TF says (for the most part). if TF meant religious as in "one who believes in a god," then I would completely disagree with him. when you fail to define your terms, you gain an unfair emotional advantage over your opponents

[HubertCumberdale22]

@RealKeenan now you just added like 20 new nouns to which I could add "whatever that is". My comment was directed at his annoying use of this phrase and should guide the reader to the conclusion that you could put that phrase behind any word you wanted. Every utterance of "whatever that is" is thus a complete waste of time and the only effect achieved by it is me wanting to punch him just a little bit more.

Hope that cleared things up for you.

[Ekenedil]

@telemantros There is a definition of "science" and "religion". Read the dictionary, you illiterate moron. That's what it is there for.

Actually, we do have a consensus on how to do science.

Yes, science is mutually exclusive with religious dogmas and religious epistemological philosophy.

Thunderf00t is absolutely right when he says that religion is divergent and science is convergent.

Religions doesn't dominate ethics either.

You are very unlettered.

[GodIX2]

Yea, let's ignore that TF clearly compares supernatural explanations (religion!) vs "pearl" (i.e. explanations based on physical evidence). Do you really think that the beef with religion is based on that it's just another set "ideological belief"?

A hint is that religious beliefs demands faith in the supernatural, which almost all other beliefs don't. Even where there are no evidence to support it.